Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

David D. Gow is the Edgar R. Baker Professor of International Affairs and Anthropology and Director of the International Development Studies Program in The Elliott School of International Affairs at The George Washington University. Formerly a consultant to the World Bank and a senior associate with the World Resources Institute, he is a coeditor of Implementing Rural Development Projects: Lessons from AID and World Bank Experiences.

Von der hinteren Coverseite

"Amid abundant critiques of development, salutary and incisive as they may be, two countervailing patterns are disconcertingly persistent: dominant institutions continue to implement development programs according to their own top-down plans, and many subordinated peoples continue to 'desire' development even while harboring deep skepticism of top-down solutions. David D. Gow's study moves us beyond this impasse, showing how indigenous struggles have subverted dominant plans, not by rejecting development wholesale, but rather through pragmatic, militant struggle from within. His findings are sober yet profoundly hopeful for the transformative potential of grassroots indigenous politics and, equally important, for a rejuvenated anthropology that learns from these struggles by simultaneously taking part in them."--Charles R. Hale, Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Countering Development

Duke University Press

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................ixAbbreviations..........................................................................................xiiiIntroduction: Beyond the Developmental Gaze............................................................11 More Than an Engaged Fieldnote Collaboration, Dialogue, and Difference..............................212 Disaster and Diaspora Discourses of Development and Opportunity.....................................593 Development Planning Slaves of Modernity or Agents of Change?.......................................964 Local Knowledge, Different Dreams Planning for the Next Generation..................................1345 The Nasa of the North and the Tensions of Modernity..................................................1716 Beyond Development The Continuing Struggle for Peace, Justice, and Inclusion........................202Conclusion: Countering Development Indigenous Modernity and the Moral Imagination.....................240Notes..................................................................................................261Bibliography...........................................................................................273Index..................................................................................................295

Chapter One

If anthropologists are not interested in the fate of their subjects, then what use can their knowledge have, either to the community itself or to any genuine "science of man"?-peter whiteley, "The End of Anthropology (at Hopi?)"

More Than an Engaged Fieldnote: Collaboration, Dialogue, and Difference

Anthropology as a discipline prides itself on "being there," in the sense that the anthropologist goes to the "field" and observes and talks with people. This is anything but simple and straightforward since the anthropologist, whether he or she likes it or not, becomes an active participant in the process he or she is studying. The researcher becomes the major research instrument in the creation and collection of information. If the ethnography produced is to have any acceptance or credibility, it is incumbent upon the researcher to tell the reader how he or she went about collecting the information and also to disclose any personal idiosyncrasies that may have helped or hindered the process.

This first chapter addresses the issue by discussing key elements of my research process in Colombia. The first element is the justification for doing research at all in Colombia, particularly in rural areas, where personal security becomes a major issue. A second and more important element deals with the problems and pitfalls of trying to be a moral and engaged researcher while maintaining a certain objectivity. The third and final element, really an experiment, is an example of how to be actively engaged, moving beyond collaboration in the running of workshops and the production of texts to a more full-blooded but nuanced dialogue about meaning, difference, and responsibilities to those studied.

Who Does Fieldwork in Colombia?

I am periodically asked why I choose to do research in Colombia, the implication being that my choice is somewhat strange, even potentially dangerous. I have no smart, foolproof answer to this question. Nevertheless, it is a question that has concerned me for a decade now, one with which I continue to wrestle. Colombia is a nation at war, particularly in the countryside. This has profound methodological, political, and ethical implications for any serious researcher, but particularly for an anthropologist whose bread-and-butter, if you will, is people. Myriam Jimeno (2001) has argued that the pervasive environment of violence that characterizes contemporary Colombia has produced a climate of personal insecurity and social fragmentation. Daily life becomes less predictable and more circumscribed, thereby underscoring why anthropological fieldwork in inherently dangerous. The researcher may be defined as a spy. People may find it very difficult to understand or appreciate the research topic. Neutrality and objectivity are difficult, if not impossible. The researcher must learn to walk and talk softly, in terms of where to go and what questions to ask, and must continually define and redefine the risks and dangers, not only to himself, but perhaps more important, for those with whom he is working (Sluka 1995).

In the case of Colombia, as elsewhere in Latin America, there is a long, well-documented, and fully justified history of viewing foreign researchers in rural areas with skepticism and suspicion. Why are they there? Who are they working for? What will they do with the information they collect? Given that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has a well-established and notorious track record in the region, the assumption is that researchers are working for the "agency," or some similar, potentially threatening entity. Not only are researchers' motives suspect, so are the topics of their research.

In such a politically sensitive situation as that found in Cauca, no "neutrals are allowed." As a result, fieldwork demands a certain degree of engagement on the part of the investigator, whether as scholar, critic, interlocutor, collaborator, advocate, or activist, but such engagement also exacts a price, politically and ethically, because often the anthropologist must choose to take sides, casting his lot with the powerless in their struggles with the powerful, and thus running the risk that the ethnography produced, as part of the public domain, can be used either to benefit or to harm the people described (Greene 1995).

In a review of indigenous rights movements in Africa and Latin America, Dorothy Hodgson characterizes "interlocutors" such as herself: "As scholars who share our ideas and work with indigenous groups in ongoing, constructive, and, perhaps, even occasionally contentious dialogues and debates in an effort to inform and shape their policies and practices, without directly aligning ourselves with one group or faction of the movement" (2002, 1045). She is making an important point here. While quite prepared to share her information, knowledge, and expertise with those she is studying, Hodgson is careful to avoid committing herself to any one particular group. Though this is understandable methodologically, in practical terms it may be impossible, since the willingness to share with indigenous groups is a political statement in and of itself. This is certainly the case in Colombia, and I would question the extent to which one can make these fine distinctions in arenas characterized by long histories of discrimination, oppression, and political violence. Interlocution and collaboration may be the sine qua non for undertaking any type of ethnographic research in this context. Such engagement, of course, is two-sided: while it may strengthen the researcher's credibility in the eyes of some, it is guaranteed to make him...